Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Robert Gates' surprised reaction to Obama is surprising, questionable and hard to swallow

I was surprised to read that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates was actually surprised when he heard President Obama and Hillary Clinton say to one another, several years ago - in Mr. Gates' presence - that their opposition to the 2007 surge in Iraq was political.

Mr. Gates spent considerable time working in the Obama administration. How is it possible that a shrewd and cunning individual like Mr. Gates was unaware of the true nature of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?

According to journalist Bob Woodward, Robert Gates writes in his upcoming memoir as follows:

"Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary... The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”

Mr. Gates also called the aforementioned exchange between Obama and Hillary "remarkable".

Really, Mr. Gates? Was it really "surprising, dismaying and remarkable" to hear that exchange?

Difficult to believe, and hard to swallow; Mr. Gates, is a lot smarter than that.

Robert Gates must surely realize by now that President Obama [and Hillary Clinton, for that matter] has no principled ideological views. Aside from the President's policy of appeasing the most despicable and rogue elements around the globe, Mr. Obama stands for nothing; he has no real principles; everything he does, or says, is political and calculated, including the admission he made in the presence of Mr. Gates.

Why would Obama admit, in the presence of Mr. Gates, that his opposition to the Iraq surge was political, when saying such a thing sounds so awful,and callous?

The answer is simple to anyone who has the slightest understanding of Obama, and Hillary for that matter.

The President felt compelled to admit to Hillary, and to Mr. Gates, that his opposition to the surge was political, because, despite Obama's vociferous opposition to the surge and the huge stumbling blocks he placed in front of the then-Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush, the surge succeeded. And that raises questions about Obama's leadership qualities, his intellect and his ability to make both military and foreign policy decisions. Hence, Obama's admission to both Hillary and Mr. Gates that his opposition to the surge was political - as callous and ridiculous as it sounds - was more appealing to Obama than to simply say he made a bad call and that he had exercised bad judgement and exhibited complete incompetence when he opposed the much needed surge.

Moreover, Mr. Gates - like his former boss - seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth and engaging in a bit of political maneuvering when he writes in his memoir that the President made the right decisions in Afghanistan, and yet he criticizes Obama and writes that, in early 2010, he reached the conclusion that Obama "doesn't believe in his own strategy and doesn't consider the war to be his." adding that "for [Obama], it's all about getting out."

My head is spinning.

Bob Woodward, in his 2010 book, Obama's Wars, quoted President Obama, the Politician-in-Chief, as saying at various White House meetings: "I have two years with the public on this [the war in Afghanistan]... I want an exit strategy. I can't let this be a war without end. I can't lose the whole Democratic Party."

Politics as usual.

In December of 2009, President Obama ordered a troop surge in Afghanistan. But while announcing his plans to send 30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, the Politician-in-Chief also announced that the troops would begin to withdraw from the country in 18 months. Shortly thereafter, Zalmay Khalilzad, the former US Ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, criticized Obama's strategy in an interview with CNN:

"Today, the president of the United States... announced an escalation of the war", Khalilzad said... "But he also coupled that with an exit strategy, including a goal of when the troops can start coming home..."

"If you [establish] a time line," Khalilzad said, "you encourage the enemy to out-wait you, to regard the strategy as not enduring."

"When I was the ambassador in Afghanistan," Khalizad added, "the Taliban sent me a message saying: 'You have all the watches, but we have all the time!' I think the emphasis on an artificial time line may encourage the Taliban to persist, to endure and for the region to assume that we do not have the staying power and, therefore, make the job of succeeding harder."

How right he was! Obama, when announcing his timeline for withdrawal. essentially telegraphed to the Taliban that he was seeking an exit strategy and that he did not take the troop surge seriously. Obama also reached out to the Taliban during that period of time and tried to commence talks with the Taliban, which made many people wonder whether Obama was actually boosting the Taliban's morale and sending the troops in harm's way for naught.

According to Mr. Gates, it wasn't until early 2010 that he reached the conclusion that Obama didn't "believe in his own strategy," and that "for [Obama]," it was "all about getting out." However, that conclusion should have been reached in December of 2009, the day Obama announced the troop surge while simultaneously announcing, and telegraphing to the Taliban, his 18 month timeline for withdrawing the troops. The surge was clearly a joke; a dangerous and phony gesture.

Mr. Gates also writes: "I never doubted Obama's support for the troops, only his support for their mission."

Suffice it to say that Obama's decision to announce a troop surge while simultaneously announcing a timetable for withdrawal, prompted a panel discussion on the Liberal CNN news channel as to whether the President's decision to send troops in harm's way with the aforementioned stipulations, and with a win-or-lose timetable for withdrawal, was "conscionable" or not.

Mr. Gates, however, "never doubted Obama's support for the troops."

Hmmm, but what about Obama's 2007 vote in the senate to cut off funding for the troops in Iraq? Obama, at the time, was harshly criticized by then-Sen. Joe Biden, who said the funds were needed to procure the necessary supplies to protect the troops. Mr. Biden said that the vote to cut off funds for the troops in Iraq was a political maneuver that jeopardized the lives of the troops. Of course, at the time, Mr. Biden's son was about to be deployed to Iraq, otherwise the veteran pol would have likely voted the same way. Nevertheless, Biden was right on the mark with his critique, and yet, for some strange reason, Mr. Gates has "never doubted Obama's support for the troops." Hmmm, I can't help but doubt Mr. Gates' sincerity on the matter.

It goes without saying that President Obama is the ultimate appeaser, who has a twisted view of the enemy. The only question is whether Robert Gates has a twisted view, and a twisted understanding of Obama?

The answer is most likely, 'No'. I think Robert Gates has a much clearer understanding of Obama than he is willing to admit. And yet, he is supportive of Obama.

OBAMA: 'END-OF-LIFE CARE' TOO COSTLY!

"I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care... is what you do around things like end-of-life care.... I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here!"Barack Obama in an interivew with the New York Times - April 2009